2026 Valid CSP-Assessor Real Exam Questions, practice Customer Security Programme (CSP) [Q22-Q40]

Topic	Details
Topic 1	Understanding the methodology and assessment deliverables: This section is designed for independent auditors working with Swift systems. It tests the candidate’s grasp of the Assessor’s role and obligations when conducting a CSP assessment. The section evaluates knowledge of key elements to consider during the assessment process.
Topic 2	Understanding the Swift Customer Security Programme: This domain is targeted at compliance officers and risk managers involved in Swift operations. It evaluates the candidate’s comprehension of the CSP controls framework and their ability to determine the appropriate architecture type and related scope as outlined in the Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF).
Topic 3	Understanding Swift: This section of the exam measures the skills of Swift network administrators and covers Swift’s crucial role in the international financial community, including the structure and operations of the Swift network and its infrastructure.

NEW QUESTION 22
The Swift user has an sFTP server to push files to an outsourcing agent hosting the Swift users own Communication interface. What is their architecture type?

A1

B

A3

A4

NEW QUESTION 23
A SWIFT user has had part of controls assessed by their internal audit department, and the other remaining controls using an external assessor company. Is this acceptable? (Select the correct answer)
*Swift Customer Security Controls Policy
*Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025
*Independent Assessment Framework
*Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines
*Independent Assessment Framework – High-Level Test Plan Guidelines
*Outsourcing Agents – Security Requirements Baseline v2025
*CSP Architecture Type – Decision tree
*CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025
*Assessment template for Mandatory controls
*Assessment template for Advisory controls
*CSCF Assessment Completion Letter
*Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template

Yes, a SWIFT user can combine multiple assessment types (internal and external assessment) as long as all controls are covered

No, because the SWIFT user cannot be sure the same approach and quality will be delivered

Yes, but only if there is a signed agreement between all involved assessors

No, SWIFT can reject the attestation in such situations

The SWIFT CSP requires a consistent and independent assessment process, as specified in the “Independent Assessment Framework” and “Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines.” Let’s evaluate each option:
*Option A: Yes, a SWIFT user can combine multiple assessment types (internal and external assessment) as long as all controls are covered This is incorrect. The CSP mandates that the assessment be conducted by a single, independent assessor or firm to ensure uniformity and objectivity. Mixing internal audits (which lack independence) with external assessments does not meet the requirement, as per the “Independent Assessment Framework.”
*Option B: No, because the SWIFT user cannot be sure the same approach and quality will be delivered This is incorrect as the primary reason. While consistency is a concern, the main issue is the lack of independence, not just quality variation.
*Option C: Yes, but only if there is a signed agreement between all involved assessors This is incorrect. A signed agreement does not resolve the CSP’s requirement for a single independent assessment. The “Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines” does not allow hybrid assessments.
*Option D: No, SWIFT can reject the attestation in such situations
This is correct. SWIFT reserves the right to reject attestations if the assessment process does not comply with the requirement for a fully independent assessment by a certified assessor. The
“Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template” and “CSCF Assessment Completion Letter” must reflect a single, consistent evaluation, and the “Independent Assessment Framework” explicitly prohibits reliance on internal audits for compliance attestation.
Summary of Correct answer:
This approach is not acceptable, and SWIFT can reject the attestation (D).
References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:
*Independent Assessment Framework: Requires a single independent assessor.
*Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines: Prohibits mixed assessment types.
*Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template: Reflects a unified assessment process.
========

NEW QUESTION 24
The SWIFT HSM Box must be hardened at the system level by the SWIFT user owning the equipment.
*Swift Customer Security Controls Policy
*Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025
*Independent Assessment Framework
*Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines
*Independent Assessment Framework – High-Level Test Plan Guidelines
*Outsourcing Agents – Security Requirements Baseline v2025
*CSP Architecture Type – Decision tree
*CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025
*Assessment template for Mandatory controls
*Assessment template for Advisory controls
*CSCF Assessment Completion Letter
*Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template

TRUE

FALSE

NEW QUESTION 25
The Internal Audit and an external assessment company are both involved in a SWIFT user’s assessment.
Both have shared control assessments to cover the full scope (meaning two separate assessment teams). Who needs to provide a completion letter? (Select the correct answer)
*Swift Customer Security Controls Policy
*Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025
*Independent Assessment Framework
*Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines
*Independent Assessment Framework – High-Level Test Plan Guidelines
*Outsourcing Agents – Security Requirements Baseline v2025
*CSP Architecture Type – Decision tree
*CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025
*Assessment template for Mandatory controls
*Assessment template for Advisory controls
*CSCF Assessment Completion Letter
*Swift_CSP_Assessment_Report_Template

The Internal audit lead assessor and the external company lead assessor

The Internal audit lead assessor only

The External company lead assessor only

None of them, it is not required when an internal department was involved in the assessment

NEW QUESTION 26
The SwiftNet Link (SNL) software is always required for the Swift Alliance Gateway to operate.
SIL Connectivity
*Generic
*Products Cloud
*Products OnPrem
*Security

TRUE

FALSE

SwiftNet Link (SNL) is a critical component of the SWIFT infrastructure, serving as the mandatory network interface for accessing SWIFTNet services. The Swift Alliance Gateway (SAG) is a communication interface that consolidates message flows from various applications and connects them to the SWIFT network.
According to SWIFT documentation, SAG is a modular software package installed on top of SNL, meaning SNL is a foundational requirement for SAG to operate.
SNL provides essential functionalities such as transport, formatting, security, and service management, enabling secure and interoperable communication over the SWIFT Secure IP Network (SIPN). SAG uses SNL to establish this connectivity, as it does not have direct network access capabilities on its own. For example, SAG relies on SNL to handle SWIFT message types like FIN, InterAct, and FileAct, ensuring secure communication with the SWIFT network. This dependency is evident in architectures where SAG is deployed, such as in the Alliance Connect Virtual solutions, where SNL is always included alongside SAG to facilitate connectivity.
The mention of “SIL Connectivity” in the question refers to the SWIFT Integration Layer (SIL), which is often part of cloud-based deployments like Alliance Cloud. However, even in such setups, SNL remains a requirement for SAG to function, as SIL itself interacts with SAG/SNL to manage message flows. The categories “Generic,” “Products Cloud,” “Products OnPrem,” and “Security” likely refer to the context of SWIFT services, but they do not alter the fundamental requirement of SNL for SAG operation.
There are no exceptions in SWIFT’s official documentation where SAG can operate without SNL. Even in cloud-based solutions like Alliance Cloud or Alliance Lite2, SNL is either embedded or provided as part of the connectivity stack. For instance, in Alliance Connect Virtual deployments, SAG and SNL are deployed together to ensure connectivity to SWIFTNet. Therefore, the statement is unequivocally true.
References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:
*SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: The CSCF mandates secure connectivity components like SNL within the SWIFT secure zone (Control 1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection).
*SWIFT Alliance Gateway Documentation: SAG is described as requiring SNL for connectivity to SWIFTNet, as it acts as an interface on top of SNL.
*SWIFTNet Link Documentation: SNL is the mandatory network interface for all external SWIFTNet communications, including those facilitated by SAG.

NEW QUESTION 27
Select the components a SwiftNet Link (SNL) may communicate with. (Choose all that apply.)

The Graphical User Interface

The VPN boxes

The HSM device

The messaging interface (such as Alliance Access)

NEW QUESTION 28
Select the correct statement about SWIFT Alliance Cloud.
*Connectivity
*Generic
*Products Cloud
*Products OnPrem
*Security

Alliance Cloud is a SWIFT cloud-based solution. It provides a universal channel to the financial community and to SWIFT Value Added services and initiatives

Alliance Cloud is a cloud-based solution. It is offered by the 3 official public cloud providers. This allows customers the choice to select their preferred cloud provider

Alliance Cloud is a cloud-based solution. It is offered by any public cloud provider that subscribed to the digital connectivity initiative

Alliance Cloud is a SWIFT cloud-based solution. It consists of an Alliance Access instance deployed at one of the three SWIFT-approved public cloud providers

SWIFT Alliance Cloud is a managed cloud service provided by SWIFT to deliver a fully hosted SWIFT infrastructure, reducing the local footprint for users. Let’s evaluate each option:
*Option A: Alliance Cloud is a SWIFT cloud-based solution. It provides a universal channel to the financial community and to SWIFT Value Added services and initiatives This is partially correct but incomplete. Alliance Cloud is indeed a SWIFT-managed cloud solution, and it facilitates connectivity to the financial community and SWIFT Value Added Services (e.g., SWIFT gpi, Sanctions Screening). However, the term “universal channel” is vague and not a precise description of Alliance Cloud’s functionality, which is more accurately defined as a hosted messaging and connectivity platform. This option lacks specificity about the deployment model.
*Option B: Alliance Cloud is a cloud-based solution. It is offered by the 3 official public cloud providers. This allows customers the choice to select their preferred cloud provider This is incorrect. Alliance Cloud is a SWIFT-managed service deployed on specific public cloud providers approved by SWIFT, not a solution where customers can choose any of the “3 official public cloud providers.” SWIFT partners with select providers (e.g., AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud) but controls the deployment and configuration, limiting customer choice to SWIFT-approved instances.
*Option C: Alliance Cloud is a cloud-based solution. It is offered by any public cloud provider that subscribed to the digital connectivity initiative This is incorrect. Alliance Cloud is not available on any public cloud provider that subscribes to a “digital connectivity initiative.” It is hosted exclusively on SWIFT-approved public cloud providers, ensuring compliance with SWIFT’s security and operational standards. The term “digital connectivity initiative” is not a recognized framework in SWIFT documentation for Alliance Cloud.
*Option D: Alliance Cloud is a SWIFT cloud-based solution. It consists of an Alliance Access instance deployed at one of the three SWIFT-approved public cloud providers This is correct. Alliance Cloud is a SWIFT-managed cloud solution that includes a hosted Alliance Access instance (a messaging interface) deployed on one of the three SWIFT-approved public cloud providers (e.g., AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud). This setup provides a fully managed environment for SWIFT connectivity, reducing the user’s local infrastructure needs. The CSCF applies to this cloud deployment, with SWIFT managing many security controls (e.g., “1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection”). SWIFT documentation confirms this model, emphasizing the use of approved providers.
Summary of Correct answer:
The correct statement is D, accurately describing Alliance Cloud as a SWIFT-managed solution with an Alliance Access instance on SWIFT-approved public cloud providers.
References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:
*SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Supports cloud deployments on approved providers (Control 1.1).
*SWIFT Alliance Cloud Documentation: Details the deployment on SWIFT-approved public cloud providers with Alliance Access.
*SWIFT Cloud Partnership Guidelines: Lists approved providers like AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud.
========

NEW QUESTION 29
As a Swift CSP Certified Assessor. Swift contacted me to provide evidence on an assessment I have performed. This is required to support their quality assurance validation process. Is it allowed?

Yes, one of the obligations of the certification programme is that quality assessment can be performed by Swift

No, it’s confidential

This question addresses the obligations of a Swift CSP Certified Assessor regarding the provision of evidence to Swift for quality assurance purposes.
Step 1: Understand the Role of a Swift CSP Certified Assessor
A Swift CSP Certified Assessor is an independent professional or entity authorized to conduct CSP assessments under theIndependent Assessment Framework. The certification program, managed by Swift, includes specific obligations to ensure the integrity and quality of assessments.
Step 2: Analyze the Request for Evidence
* Swift has contacted the assessor to provide evidence from an assessment to support their quality assurance validation process. This request implies a review of the assessor’s work to ensure compliance with CSP standards.
* TheSwift CSP Assessor Certification Program Guidelinesstate that certified assessors are obligated to cooperate with Swift’s quality assurance processes. This includes providingevidence (e.g., assessment reports, workpapers) upon request to verify the accuracy and adherence to methodology, as part of Swift’s oversight.
* Confidentiality is a concern, but theCSCF v2024andAssessor Certification Programclarify that assessors must share evidence with Swift under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) or similar confidentiality framework, ensuring data protection while allowing validation.
Step 3: Evaluate Each Option
* A. Yes, one of the obligations of the certification programme is that quality assessment can be performed by SwiftTheSwift CSP Assessor Certification Program Guidelinesexplicitly outline that Swift may conduct quality assessments, and assessors must provide evidence to support this process.
This is a contractual obligation of certification, aligning with Swift’s responsibility to maintain CSP integrity.Conclusion: This is correct.
* B. No, it’s confidentialWhile confidentiality is critical (protected underControl 2.3: System Access Controland Swift’s privacy policies), the certification program requires assessors to share evidence with Swift for quality assurance, subject to confidentiality agreements. Refusing to provide evidence would breach the assessor’s obligations.Conclusion: This is incorrect.
Step 4: Conclusion and Verification
The answer isA, as theSwift CSP Assessor Certification Programmandates that certified assessors must support Swift’s quality assurance validation by providing evidence, balancing confidentiality with compliance oversight.
References
* Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 2.3: System Access Control.
* Swift CSP Assessor Certification Program Guidelines, Section: Obligations and Quality Assurance.
* Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Assessor Responsibilities.

NEW QUESTION 30
Which ones are Alliance Lite2 key components? (Choose all that apply.)

A web interface

An AutoClient

A HSM box

A WebSphere MQ Server

NEW QUESTION 31
What type of control effectiveness needs to be validated for an independent assessment?

Effectiveness is never validated only the control design

An independent assessment is a point in time review with possible reviews of older evidence as appropriate

Operational effectiveness needs to be validated

None of the above

This question addresses the type of control effectiveness that must be validated during an independent assessment under the Swift Customer Security Programme (CSP). Let’s analyze this based on theSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF)and related guidelines.
Step 1: Understand Independent Assessments in Swift CSP
The Swift CSP mandates that users undergo an independent assessment to validate their compliance with the CSCF controls. This requirement is detailed in theCSCF v2024, under theIndependent Assessment Framework
. The purpose of the assessment is to ensure that controls are not only designed appropriately but also implemented and operating effectively.
Step 2: Evaluate Each Option
* A. Effectiveness is never validated only the control designThis statement is incorrect. The Independent Assessment Frameworkexplicitly requiresvalidation of both the design and theoperational effectivenessof controls. Assessing only the design without confirming that the control is working as intended does not meet Swift’s compliance requirements.Conclusion: This is incorrect.
* B. An independent assessment is a point in time review with possible reviews of older evidence as appropriateWhile this statement is factually true (an independent assessment is indeed a point-in-time review, as per theCSCF v2024), it does not directly answer the question about what type of control effectiveness needs to be validated. It describes the nature of the assessment, not the focus of validation.
Conclusion: This does not address the question directly.
* C. Operational effectiveness needs to be validatedTheIndependent Assessment Frameworkspecifies that an independent assessment must validate both the design and the operational effectiveness of CSCF controls. Operational effectiveness ensures that controls are functioning as intended over a period of time, not just designed correctly on paper. This includes testing controls (e.g., logging, access controls) to confirm they are working in practice, as required for attestation.Conclusion: This is correct.
* D. None of the aboveSince option C is correct, this option is not applicable.Conclusion: This is incorrect.
Step 3: Conclusion and Verification
The correct answer isC, as theCSCF v2024andIndependent Assessment Frameworkrequire validation of the operational effectiveness of controls during an independent assessment, ensuring that controls are not only designed but also implemented and functioning effectively.
References
* Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Section: Independent Assessment Requirements.
* Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Assessment Scope and Objectives.
* Swift CSP FAQ, Section: Independent Assessment Guidelines.

NEW QUESTION 32
A Swift user has moved from one Service Bureau to another What are the obligations of the Swift user in the CSP context?

To inform the SB certification office at Swift WW

To reflect that in the next attestation cycle

None if there is no impact in the architecture tope

To submit an updated attestation reflecting this change within 3 months

This question addresses the obligations of a Swift user who has switched from one Service Bureau (SB) to another under the Customer Security Programme (CSP).
Step 1: Understand CSP Obligations for Changes
TheSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024andIndependent Assessment Framework require Swift users to maintain accurate and up-to-date information regarding their infrastructure,including changes in service providers like Service Bureaus. Such changes may impact compliance and architecture types.
Step 2: Evaluate Each Option
* A. To inform the SB certification office at Swift WWThere is no specific “SB certification office” mentioned in theCSCF v2024orSwift CSP Guidelines. Notifications are typically handled through attestation updates, not a dedicated office.Conclusion: Incorrect.
* B. To reflect that in the next attestation cycleWhile changes must be reflected in attestations, delaying this until the next cycle (e.g., annually) is insufficient if the change affects compliance. The Swift CSP Compliance Guidelinesrequire timely updates for significant changes.Conclusion: Incorrect.
* C. None if there is no impact in the architecture typeEven if the architecture type (e.g., A2, A4) remains unchanged, a switch in Service Bureau may affect security controls, vendor management, or connectivity. TheCSCF v2024underControl 1.1: Swift Environment Protectionrequires users to report changes that could impact compliance, regardless of architecture type.Conclusion: Incorrect.
* D. To submit an updated attestation reflecting this change within 3 monthsTheSwift CSP Compliance GuidelinesandIndependent Assessment Frameworkmandate that significant changes (e.g., switching Service Bureaus) be reported through an updated attestation within 3 months. This ensures Swift is informed of potential compliance impacts and allows for review.Conclusion: Correct.
Step 3: Conclusion and Verification
The correct answer isD, as theCSCF v2024andSwift CSP Compliance Guidelinesrequire an updated attestation within 3 months to reflect a change in Service Bureau.
References
* Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Control 1.1: Swift Environment Protection.
* Swift Independent Assessment Framework, Section: Change Reporting.
* Swift CSP Compliance Guidelines, Section: Timely Updates.

NEW QUESTION 33
What are the three main objectives of the Customer Security Controls Framework? (Select the correct answer)
*Swift Customer Security Controls Policy
*Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025
*Independent Assessment Framework
*Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines
*Independent Assessment Framework – High-Level Test Plan Guidelines
*Outsourcing Agents – Security Requirements Baseline v2025
*CSP Architecture Type – Decision tree
*CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025
*Assessment template for Mandatory controls
*Assessment template for Advisory controls

1. Secure your environment
2. Know and Limit Access
3. Detect and Respond

1. Restrict Internet Access and Protect Critical Systems from General IT Environment
2. Reduce Attack Surface and Vulnerabilities
3. Physically Secure the Environment

1. Secure and Protect
2. Prevent and Detect
3. Share and Prepare

1. Raise pragmatically the security bar
2. Maintain appropriate cyber-security hygiene
3. React promptly

The Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF), part of the SWIFT Customer Security Programme, aims to enhance the security of the SWIFT ecosystem by defining mandatory and advisory security controls for users. The three main objectives are explicitly outlined in the CSCF documentation and reflect a holistic approach to security. Let’s evaluate each option:
*Option A: 1. Secure your environment, 2. Know and Limit Access, 3. Detect and Respond This is correct. These three objectives align directly with the core principles of the CSCF:
oSecure your environment: This involves implementing controls to protect the SWIFT-related infrastructure (e.g., CSCF Control 1.1 SWIFT Environment Protection, 1.2 Physical Security) against unauthorized access and threats.
oKnow and Limit Access: This focuses on managing access controls and authentication (e.g., CSCF Control
2.2 External Transmission Security, 6.1 Security Awareness) to ensure only authorized personnel can interact with the SWIFT environment.
oDetect and Respond: This emphasizes monitoring and incident response (e.g., CSCF Control 4.1 Logging and 5.1 Operational Incident Response) to identify and mitigate security incidents. These objectives are explicitly stated in the “Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025” and reinforced across related documents like the “CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025.”
*Option B: 1. Restrict Internet Access and Protect Critical Systems from General IT Environment, 2. Reduce Attack Surface and Vulnerabilities, 3. Physically Secure the Environment This is incorrect. While these are specific controls within the CSCF (e.g., Control 1.1, 2.3 System Hardening,
1.2), they are not the overarching objectives. They are implementation details rather than the high-level goals of the framework.
*Option C: 1. Secure and Protect, 2. Prevent and Detect, 3. Share and Prepare This is incorrect. These terms are vague and do not match the official CSCF objectives. “Share and Prepare” is not a recognized objective, and the phrasing does not align with SWIFT documentation.
*Option D: 1. Raise pragmatically the security bar, 2. Maintain appropriate cyber-security hygiene, 3. React promptly This is incorrect. While these concepts are related to security improvement, they are not the specific objectives outlined in the CSCF. The language is more general and lacks the structured focus of the official objectives.
Summary of Correct answer:
The three main objectives of the CSCF are to Secure your environment, Know and Limit Access, and Detect and Respond (A), as defined in the framework’s core principles.
References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:
*Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Outlines the three main objectives (Secure, Know and Limit, Detect and Respond).
*CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025: Aligns controls with these objectives.
*Independent Assessment Framework: Supports the assessment of these objectives.
========

NEW QUESTION 34
Which ones are Alliance Lite2 key components? (Choose all that apply.)

A web interface

An AutoClient

A HSM box

A WebSphere MQ Server

NEW QUESTION 35
The SWIFT user has a local communication interface as their main channel to SWIFT. For contingency, the SWIFT user also has a connector as a backup channel. What is the architecture type for this SWIFT user?
(Select the correct answer)
*Swift Customer Security Controls Policy
*Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025
*Independent Assessment Framework
*Independent Assessment Process for Assessors Guidelines
*Independent Assessment Framework – High-Level Test Plan Guidelines
*Outsourcing Agents – Security Requirements Baseline v2025
*CSP Architecture Type – Decision tree
*CSP_controls_matrix_and_high_test_plan_2025
*Assessment template for Mandatory controls
*Assessment template for Advisory controls
*CSCF Assessment Completion Letter
*Swift CSP Assessment Report Template

A1

A2

A3

A4

The SWIFT CSP defines architecture types (A1 to A4) based on the components a user owns and manages, as outlined in the “CSP Architecture Type – Decision tree” and “Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025.” These types determine the applicable security controls and assessment requirements. Let’s analyze the scenario:
*A local communication interface refers to a component like Alliance Gateway (SAG), which manages connectivity to the SWIFT network via SwiftNet Link (SNL) and VPN boxes. The user owns this interface locally as their main channel.
*A connector (or customer connector) is a custom application or integration layer that connects to SWIFT services, often used as an alternative or backup channel. In this case, it serves as a contingency backup.
*The architecture types are:
oA1: Full stack (owns messaging interface, communication interface, and network components, e.g., Alliance Access, Alliance Gateway, VPN boxes).
oA2: Owns a customer connector and communication interface, with the messaging interface hosted elsewhere (e.g., by a service bureau or SWIFT).
oA3: Owns only a customer connector, relying on external communication and messaging interfaces.
oA4: Uses a fully hosted solution (e.g., Alliance Cloud or Lite2), owning no local components.
*The scenario indicates the user owns a local communication interface (e.g., SAG) as the primary channel and a connector as a backup. However, there is no mention of owning a messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access) locally. This suggests the messaging interface is likely hosted externally (e.g., by a service bureau or SWIFT), which aligns with the A2 architecture type. The “CSP Architecture Type – Decision tree” classifies A2 as a user with a communication interface and a customer connector, where the messaging interface is not locally owned. The backup connector does not change the primary architecture type, as it is an additional component within the A2 framework.
*Option A: A1
This is incorrect. A1 requires ownership of a messaging interface (e.g., Alliance Access), which is not mentioned.
*Option B: A2
This is correct. A2 fits the scenario of owning a communication interface and a customer connector, with the messaging interface potentially hosted elsewhere.
*Option C: A3
This is incorrect. A3 involves only a customer connector, not a communication interface.
*Option D: A4
This is incorrect. A4 applies to fully hosted solutions with no local ownership of connectors or interfaces.
The SWIFT user with a local communication interface as the main channel and a connector as a backup is of architecture type A2 (B).
References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:
*Swift Customer Security Controls Framework v2025: Defines architecture types A1-A4.
*CSP Architecture Type – Decision tree: Classifies A2 for communication interface and customer connector ownership.
*Assessment template for Mandatory controls: Applies to A2 architecture.
========

NEW QUESTION 36
The Swift secure zone is composed of a Swift connector, a middleware server and a back office system Is the selection of only one of the above components a representative sample based on the High-Level Test Plan (HLTP) guidelines?

Yes

No

NEW QUESTION 37
A Swift user has remediated an exception reported by the assessor. What are their obligations before updating and submitting an attestation reflecting the new compliance level?

The exception must be re-assessed by an independent assessor. The assessor can be different to the one who initially raised the exception

The exception must be re-assessed by the same independent assessor that raised the exception

The first line of defense can confirm their level of compliance using a self-assessment approach

None, if the remediation has been completed, a new attestation can be submitted reflecting the compliance of the control

NEW QUESTION 38
What does the CSCF expect in terms of Database Integrity? (Choose all that apply.)

Nothing is needed when the messaging or connector integrates/embeds an integrity check functionality at each Swift transaction record level.

When a database is used by a messaging interface or connector, the related hosted database and its supporting system must be protected as a Swift-related component and exceptions alerted

Alerts generated from performed integrity checks are captured and analysed for appropriate treatment

NEW QUESTION 39
When hesitant on the applicability of a CSCF control to a particular component? What steps should you take?
(Choose all that apply.)

Call your Swift contact

Check appendix F of the CSCF

Check carefully the Introduction section of the CSCF

Open a case with Swift support via the case manager on swift com if further information or solution cannot be found in the documentation

This question addresses the process for resolving uncertainty about the applicability of a CSCF control to a specific component.
Step 1: Understand the CSCF Documentation Structure
TheSwift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024provides detailed guidance on control applicability, including sections like the Introduction and appendices, as well as support mechanisms for users.
Step 2: Evaluate Each Option
* A. Call your Swift contactWhile contacting a Swift representative might be helpful, it is not the first recommended step inthe CSCF documentation. The framework prioritizes self-service through documentation and support channels like swift.com before direct contact.Conclusion: This is not a primary step.
* B. Check appendix F of the CSCFAppendix F of theCSCF v2024provides detailed guidance on control applicability, including scenarios, architecture types, and component mappings. It is a key resource for clarifying whether a control applies to a specific component.Conclusion: This is correct.
* C. Check carefully the Introduction section of the CSCFThe Introduction section of theCSCF v2024 outlines the scope, objectives, and applicability of controls, including definitions of in-scope components and architecture types. It’s a critical starting point for understanding control applicability.
Conclusion: This is correct.
* D. Open a case with Swift support via the case manager on swift.com if further information or solution cannot be found in the documentationIf the CSCF documentation (e.g., Introduction, Appendix F) does not resolve the uncertainty, theSwift CSP FAQandSwift Support Guidelines recommend opening a case via the swift.com case manager. This ensures users can get official clarification from Swift support.Conclusion: This is correct.
Step 3: Conclusion and Verification
The verified steps areB, C, and D, as they align with the recommended process in theCSCF v2024for resolving uncertainty about control applicability: first consult the documentation (Introduction and Appendix F), then escalate to Swift support if needed.
References
* Swift Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024, Introduction Section and Appendix F.
* Swift CSP FAQ, Section: Resolving Control Applicability.
* Swift Support Guidelines, Section: Case Manager Usage.

NEW QUESTION 40
How are online SwiftNet Security Officers authenticated? (Select the correct answer)
*Connectivity
*Generic
*Products Cloud
*Products OnPrem
*Security

Via their PKI certificate

Via their swift.com account and secure code card

Via their swift.com account

SwiftNet Security Officers (e.g., Local Security Officer [LSO] or Remote Security Officer [RSO]) are responsible for managing security functions in the SWIFT environment, such as configuring accesscontrols and managing PKI certificates. Authentication for online access to SwiftNet services (e.g., via the Alliance Web Platform) is a critical security measure. Let’s evaluate each option:
*Option A: Via their PKI certificate
This is incorrect. While PKI certificates are used for authenticating and signing SWIFT messages or securing communications, they are not the primary method for authenticating security officers’ online access to SwiftNet management interfaces. PKI certificates are managed by the HSM and used by applications or users for message-level security, not for logging into administrative portals.
*Option B: Via their swift.com account and secure code card
This is correct. Online SwiftNet Security Officers are authenticated using a combination of their swift.com account (a username and password managed through SWIFT’s customer portal) and a secure code card (a physical or virtual token providing a one-time password or multi-factor authentication code). This two-factor authentication (2FA) method ensures robust access control, aligning with CSCF Control “6.1 Security Awareness” and SWIFT’s emphasis on multi-layered security. SWIFT documentation for the Alliance suite and SwiftNet confirms this authentication process for security officers accessing online tools.
*Option C: Via their swift.com account
This is incorrect. Relying solely on a swift.com account (username and password) is insufficient for authenticating security officers, as it lacks the additional security layer required for sensitive administrative access. SWIFT mandates multi-factor authentication, typically involving a secure code card, to comply with security standards.
Summary of Correct answer:
Online SwiftNet Security Officers are authenticated via their swift.com account and secure code card (B), ensuring secure access to management functions.
References to SWIFT Customer Security Programme Documents:
*SWIFT Customer Security Controls Framework (CSCF) v2024: Control 6.1 supports multi-factor authentication for security officers.
*SWIFT Alliance Security Documentation: Details the use of swift.com accounts and secure code cards for LSO/RSO authentication.
*SWIFT SwiftNet Guidelines: Confirms 2FA for online security officer access.
========